RE: In significant need of help.

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 21:58 -0500, Joe Pluta wrote:
> What I mean by that is that I understand that Velocity does a pretty
> good job of not allowing you to put any sort of execution code in the
> template, and so yes, it "protects you from yourself".  But I disagree
> that I need protection.

Good for you, I am all too human :)

> More importantly, I don't think that the way to get good code is to
> cripple the coder.  This is what many 4GLs and drag'n'drop programming
> tools do; they lock you into what the language or tool designer thinks
> is proper.  Me, I prefer to have the ability, when necessary, to be able
> to do whatever needs to be done.  I trust my own ability to program.
> 
> If your goal is to remove functionality so that programmers can't make
> mistakes, I don't think it's the right philosophy.  Instead, what should
> be made available is a nice set of examples to show how to properly
> architect systems.  That's what I think is missing from today's world:
> there are no good examples of properly built systems.

I totally agree; as the IBM commercial said, "there is no magic server
pixie dust".

> Now, is the power of JSPs dangerous?  Absolutely.  But while I wouldn't
> necessarily want an application programmer access to do system-level
> programming, I think that removing the capability is the wrong
> direction.

I'm not saying JSPs should be outlawed or anything, but since I was
forced to learn Velocity to work on a framework we bought, I feel it's
made me a much better web programmer because it's forced me to do things
the right way.  It's also an order of magnitude easier for web designers
(i.e. non-programmers) to make modifications to.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Glenn Holmer                          gholmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Software Engineer                        phone: 414-908-1809
Weyco Group, Inc.                          fax: 414-908-1601